M/s Trig Detective Pvt. Ltd. Office No. D/3-6, Ground Floor, Sitaldevi v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PARTHA SARTHY
Provisions considered
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 s. 11(6)
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Versus The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. The Secretary, Health Department (Special Cell), Government of Bihar, Patna. The Secretary, Health Department (Special Cell), Government of Bihar, Patna. The Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Sheikhpura, Patna- 14, Bihar. The Deputy Director, Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Science, Sheikhpura, Patna- 14, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY Mr.Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Advocate Mr.Sunil Kumar Singh, Advocate : : ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 8 18-07-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the order imposing penalty on the petitioner with respect to a contract for supply of security personnel in the 4th respondent’s hospital. The agreement itself is produced along with the writ petition wherein Clause 64 refers to dispute resolution.
Learned counsel for the petitioner specifically points out that if the disputes are not resolved through joint Patna High Court CWJC No.15750 of 2023(8) dt.18-07-2024 discussion, then a sole Arbitrator has to be appointed by the Director, IGIMS, Patna which will be in violation of Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.
In the context of the specific dispute resolution clause, it may not be proper for us to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, as the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted the appointment of a sole Arbitrator by the Director, IGIMS, Patna would be against Section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act.
In such circumstances, the petitioner shall give a further representation to the 4th respondent and the 4th respondent shall call the petitioner for a joint discussion. If the issue is not resolved as per the dispute resolution clause, necessarily the petitioner would be entitled to seek appointment of an Arbitrator under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,
1996. (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) Anushka/- U
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.